Observers/observations according to SR

[Vandam]

I would be thrilled reading your points of view on following:

Special Relativity. (With that I mean: SR, not kind of an ether or LET interpretaion):
In a frame two events are observed simultaneous because they are simultaneous in that frame, even if not observed. And those two events are non-simultaneous in another frame because they are non-simultaneous in that frame, even not observed.
To make sure you understand what I mean please have a look at the sketch:

154652[/ATTACH]"]

Sketch A.

Top of sketch represents standard 3D space.
The house numbers are bolted to the house. They are part of the house. So are the colors.
Nobody will ever say that the blue house has numer 5, or yellow tower has number 2, etc
Two obsevers look at the landscape around them.
1/ Green observer and red observer can only look through a 2-dimensional telescope.
2/ Because they do not direct their telescope in the same direction (because they are rotated relative to the ground), both observers see a different house. Red observer sees the yellow tower (house number 8). Green observer sees the blue house (house with number 2).
3/ Is the tower (the image of the tower) an 'observer dependent' observation? Yes, because only the red observer sees the yellow tower. In the same context you may say that the house with number 2 is an 'observer dependent' observation: only green observer observes blue house number 2.
4/ Nevertheless we may also say, -we HAVE to say, based on both observers' observations, that both yellow tower and blue house coexist as an 'observer INdependent' construction: part of 3D landscape space that's out there to be observed or not.
If you do not accept that, then you do not believe there are houses in the street if you do not look at them.
5/ For the red observer the yellow tower is in front of him, EVEN BEFORE he looks through his telescope. The fact of looking through his telescope will not change the house, nor the number, nor the color in front of him. As long as the observer does not look through his telescope (wait for the light to reach him) red observer does not know what type of house, color and number are in front of him, but he can find out by looking at it (and he will find out when the light from the tower reaches his telescope).

You might counterargue by saying; "Wait a minute, maybe for red observer the yellow tower is brown and has number 9 instead of number 8, and he (red observer) does not know it until he observes it...". Well, that's impossible because the red observer sees a yellow tower with number 8, not a brown tower with numer 9. That's an experimental fact of the observation exercise as it turned out te be.
What if red sees a football stadium? Well, change tower into a football stadium and start over again.
What if there is out there a football stadium instead of a yellow tower? Well replace tower by football stadium and start over again.
You want the tower brown? Well change the yellow into brown and we start all over again, now with a brown tower.

------------
Sketch B.

Similar scenario is applicable to Special Relativity: spacetime diagram.
Tom is sick; his color changes every second.
Tom turns blue (like a belgian smurf) when the pointers of the clock on his face point toward the mumer 2.
When the pointers of the clock on his face point toward the mumer 8 he is yellow (like a ... ?).
The time figure is a physical real time indication on the clock held in front of Tom's face.
Nobody will say that Tom is blue when the hands of his clock point toward number 4, or 1, whatever. That's impossible.

Green and red observer move relative to each other.

1/ Green and red observer can only look with their 3-dimensional telescopes.
2/ Because the two observer move relative to each other, they see light coming from diferent events.
Red observer sees a Tom with clock indication on 8. Green observer sees Tom when the clock indication is at 2 (iow. 'Tom is not yet 8 seconds old'...). These are real observations. No illusions.
3/ Is Tom with his clock indication 8 an 'observer dependent' event? Yes, because only the red observer sees Tom with clock indication 8. In the same context you may say that Tom with clock at 2 is an 'observer dependent' event : only green observer sees Tom with clock pointers at 2.
4/ Nevertheless we may also say -we HAVE to say, based on both travelers' observations- that Tom with clock indication 2 and Tom with clock indication 8 coexist as an observer INdependent construction, part of 4D Spacetime Block Universe in which 'past, present and future' of Tom exist permanently, observer INdependent.
If you do not accept that, then you do not believe there are Tom events if you do not look at them.
(You might get away with a denial /refutation of an observer INdependent world in a QM context with microscale particles, but that's off topic here).

You might counterargue by saying "Wait a minute, maybe for red observer the yellow tower has number 9 instead of number 8, and he (red observer) does not know it until he observes it...". No, my example shows the facts as they were reported in the observation experiment. In that observation element red observer saw yellow Tom, green observer a blue Tom. Period. And why did they see that and only that? Because the events are 'observer INdependent' out there, part of 4D Spacetime to be observed. For red observer event 'yellow-Tom-with-clock-at-8' has always been simultaneous with event E, even if he didn't make an observation during his traveling. For red observer event 'Blue-Tom-with-clock-at-2' has always been non simultaneous with event E. even if he didn't make an observation during his traveling. Etc.
Simply because total 4D spacetime has organised the events that way. Just like the buildings are what they are, and where they are -and no place else- in 3D landscape Space of sketch A.

In a frame two events are observed simultaneous because they are really simultaneous in that frame, even if not observed. And those two events are non-simultaneous in another frame because they are really non-simultaneous in that frame, even not observed.

There is no other scenario unless it all gets philosophical or mathematical abstraction/illusion.

 

[PeterDonis]

In a frame two events are observed simultaneous because they are simultaneous in that frame, even if not observed.

What does "observed simultaneous" mean? I assume that you mean "assigned the same time coordinate in the given frame"; but can you clarify how, exactly, you envision this assignment of time coordinates being made based on actual observations, i.e., light signals being received from the different events? If the two events are not equidistant, in the given frame, from the observer, the light signals from those events will arrive at the observer at different times, so something about the distance from the observer to the events has to come into it, and you haven't said anything about how that is done. Not that I think this is a difficult point; I just would like to see something explicit about it.

Given an answer to that issue, it looks to me like much of what you are saying is obvious: saying a particular event exists is not the same as saying that some particular observer observes the event. The former can be true without the latter being true. Okay. So what?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Sketch A has no bearing on the topic you are discussing. It serves only to provide a misleading understanding of Sketch B.

B1/ There's no such thing as a 3-D telescope.

B2/ If two relatively moving observers are colocated, as Sketch B depicts, they will see the same light coming from all events. If one observer sees Tom at 8, so will the other one. If you think otherwise, it must be because of your magic 3-D telescope.

B3/ If they are colocated as you have drawn them, they both see Tom with the same number on him, whatever that is. There is no way that one of them can receive an image of Tom at 2 and the other one receive an image of Tom at 8 if they are colocated.

B4/ Your argument is flawed, mixed up, and screwy so your conclusions are also flawed, mixed up, and screwy.

 

[PeterDonis]

To respond to my own question in my last post, I suppose the "so what" is this:

4/ Nevertheless we may also say -we HAVE to say, based on both travelers' observations- that Tom with clock indication 2 and Tom with clock indication 8 coexist as an observer INdependent construction, part of 4D Spacetime Block Universe in which 'past, present and future' of Tom exist permanently, observer INdependent.

This implied analogy with the 3-D case is not valid. In your diagram A, the two lines going to the observer from two different houses are actual sight lines--the spatial paths of light rays. Obviously both light paths can coexist in the same 3-D space, because light can be traveling along both paths continuously and arriving at the observer continuously at the same time as each other. For example, a single observer at the point where the two lines cross could use a setup with refracting lenses to see the images of both houses together.

In your diagram B, however, the two lines, which you are claiming are analogous to those in diagram A, are *not* the paths of light rays; they are lines of simultaneity. Nothing physical actually travels along those lines. Light rays from the two events along Tom's worldline do *not* reach any observer at the same time; that's not possible. No observer can possibly see images of both Tom events at the same time, the way the observer above in the 3-D case could see images of both houses at the same time. So your analogy fails.

You could, of course, claim that the two lines you have drawn are perfectly valid geometric objects in a 4-D geometric space, even if nothing physical travels along them. But that simply assumes what you're supposed to be proving: that there *is* a 4-D geometric space, all existing "at once", for those lines to be geometric objects in. And you have not *proved* that; you have not shown that SR *requires* that interpretation. Of course it is *consistent* with SR to interpret things this way; but you are making a much stronger claim than simple consistency.

 

[Vandam]

I thought my analogy between sketches A and B might work but apparently it's a screw up.

I see that you get mixed up with light paths and lines of simultaneous events. You got a point there. Let me see wheter I can fix the text.

 

[Vandam]

Text is O.K.
But sketches A and B show the situation at the moment the lights start at tower and house.
What observers will later litterally see is only a confirmation of what's out there.
The dotted lines are simultaneity lines.

Sketch A has no bearing on the topic you are discussing. It serves only to provide a misleading understanding of Sketch B.
B1/ There's no such thing as a 3-D telescope.

In 4D space an observer in his 3D space looks through a 3dimensional telescope.

B2/ If two relatively moving observers are colocated, as Sketch B depicts, they will see the same light coming from all events. If one observer sees Tom at 8, so will the other one. If you think otherwise, it must be because of your magic 3-D telescope.

That's not what I had in mind, taking into account my extra comment above.

B3/ If they are colocated as you have drawn them, they both see Tom with the same number on him, whatever that is. There is no way that one of them can receive an image of Tom at 2 and the other one receive an image of Tom at 8 if they are colocated.

See my extra comment above

B4/ Your argument is flawed, mixed up, and screwy so your conclusions are also flawed, mixed up, and screwy.

Ineresting comment.

To respond to my own question in my last post, I suppose the "so what" is this:
This implied analogy with the 3-D case is not valid. In your diagram A, the two lines going to the observer from two different houses are actual sight lines--the spatial paths of light rays. Obviously both light paths can coexist in the same 3-D space, because light can be traveling along both paths continuously and arriving at the observer continuously at the same time as each other. For example, a single observer at the point where the two lines cross could use a setup with refracting lenses to see the images of both houses together.

In your diagram B, however, the two lines, which you are claiming are analogous to those in diagram A, are *not* the paths of light rays; they are lines of simultaneity. Nothing physical actually travels along those lines. Light rays from the two events along Tom's worldline do *not* reach any observer at the same time; that's not possible. No observer can possibly see images of both Tom events at the same time, the way the observer above in the 3-D case could see images of both houses at the same time. So your analogy fails.

I hope that my extra comment above might help to see things differently.

You could, of course, claim that the two lines you have drawn are perfectly valid geometric objects in a 4-D geometric space, even if nothing physical travels along them. But that simply assumes what you're supposed to be proving: that there *is* a 4-D geometric space, all existing "at once", for those lines to be geometric objects in. And you have not *proved* that

Relativity of simultaneity is enough prove.

; you have not shown that SR *requires* that interpretation.

I did. What other interpretation would you give? Abstract mathematical coordinate illusions like Lorentz did?

Of course it is *consistent* with SR to interpret things this way; but you are making a much stronger claim than simple consistency.

I probably miss subtility in enlish language to fully understand your point here.

 

[PeterDonis]

I probably miss subtility in enlish language to fully understand your point here.

To say that SR is consistent with the block universe interpretation just means that the block universe is one possible interpretation of SR, but not necessarily the only one.

You are making a much stronger claim; you are claiming that the block universe is the *only* possible interpretation of SR. You have advanced two arguments for that claim:

(1) The block universe interpretation is required because spacetime is a 4-D geometric object that exists "all at once";

(2) The block universe interpretation is required because it's the only one you can think of.

Argument #1 is invalid because it amounts to assuming what you are supposed to be proving, as I said before. Argument #2 is invalid because it isn't a deductive proof; it's just an assertion that you, personally, can't think of another interpretation. That's not a proof; it's an assertion about your state of knowledge, which doesn't prove anything other than the fact that that's your state of knowledge.

You do ask a valid question:

What other interpretation would you give?

My interpretation of SR is that SR is a tool for constructing models of reality. The models it constructs are not exactly correct, for two reasons: (1) SR models spacetime as flat, but the actual spacetime we live in is curved, not flat; (2) SR models physics as classical, but the actual physics of the world we live in is quantum. Since SR's models are not exactly correct, SR is not a good foundation on which to base claims about "the nature of reality".

That's sufficient to answer your question, but I also want to repeat comments I made in post #31 in the earlier thread, to which you never responded. If you want to claim that the entire 4-D spacetime of our universe has to exist "all at once", GR provides a much stronger foundation for that kind of claim than SR does, because GR includes dynamics as well as kinematics, and GR is a fully deterministic theory. But GR is also not exactly right, for two reasons: (1) it's not quantum; (2) it predicts singularities where the spacetime curvature is infinite, which is not physically reasonable.

Most people seem to believe that a quantum theory of gravity, which would fix #1, would also fix #2 by changing the physics to avoid the singularities; that's my belief, but of course we won't know for sure until we have an experimentally verified quantum theory of gravity. But in any case, the fact remains that GR isn't exactly right; so the same interpretation I gave for SR also works for GR: it is a tool for building models of reality, and its models are not exactly correct, so it's not a good foundation on which to base claims about "the nature of reality".

 

[Vandam]

Ntuml

To say that SR is consistent with the block universe interpretation just means that the block universe is one possible interpretation of SR, but not necessarily the only one.

You are making a much stronger claim; you are claiming that the block universe is the *only* possible interpretation of SR. You have advanced two arguments for that claim:

(1) The block universe interpretation is required because spacetime is a 4-D geometric object that exists "all at once";

object... Give me a definiton of 'object'...
But your point is wroing. Block universe exist because of relativity of simultaneity. That was also my very first post on this forum.

(2) The block universe interpretation is required because it's the only one you can think of.

That's a good one.
In fact yes it's the only one I can think of that works for SR. That's correct. Weel, to be honnest, I didn't 'think' of block universe when I studied SR. relativity of simultaneity automatically leads to block universe. Unles, I told you more than once, you want to stick to mathemativcal abstractions, illusions, ether and so on. i.o.w. old stuff or philosophy.

Argument #1 is invalid because it amounts to assuming what you are supposed to be proving, as I said before. Argument #2 is invalid because it isn't a deductive proof; it's just an assertion that you, personally, can't think of another interpretation. That's not a proof; it's an assertion about your state of knowledge, which doesn't prove anything other than the fact that that's your state of knowledge.

You do ask a valid question:



My interpretation of SR is that SR is a tool for constructing models of reality. The models it constructs are not exactly correct, for two reasons: (1) SR models spacetime as flat, but the actual spacetime we live in is curved, not flat; (2) SR models physics as classical, but the actual physics of the world we live in is quantum

Macro world of trains getting shorter is SR, not QM. I know that your 'the event doesn't exists as long as it is not observed' comes from your QM course. Well, keep it there. Don't infect the SR forum with it.

. Since SR's models are not exactly correct, SR is not a good foundation on which to base claims about "the nature of reality".

That's sufficient to answer your question, but I also want to repeat comments I made in post #31 in the earlier thread, to which you never responded. If you want to claim that the entire 4-D spacetime of our universe has to exist "all at once", GR provides a much stronger foundation for that kind of claim than SR does, because GR includes dynamics as well as kinematics, and GR is a fully deterministic theory. But GR is also not exactly right, for two reasons: (1) it's not quantum; (2) it predicts singularities where the spacetime curvature is infinite, which is not physically reasonable.

Most people seem to believe that a quantum theory of gravity, which would fix #1, would also fix #2 by changing the physics to avoid the singularities; that's my belief, but of course we won't know for sure until we have an experimentally verified quantum theory of gravity. But in any case, the fact remains that GR isn't exactly right; so the same interpretation I gave for SR also works for GR: it is a tool for building models of reality, and its models are not exactly correct, so it's not a good foundation on which to base claims about "the nature of reality".

I'm not interested in GR and QM in SR discussions. I stick to Einstein's 1905 paper.

Peter. I stop arguing with you. It's not the first time I say this, and after a while I give it a second chance, but I only fool myself. I consider this discussion closed. I'm tired of this. And you are probably fed up with me as well. So that's it. We better avoid each other on this forum. Good luck.

 

[PeterDonis]

object... Give me a definiton of 'object'...

"Thing" would do as well. Does that help?

But your point is wroing. Block universe exist because of relativity of simultaneity. That was also my very first post on this forum.

And you didn't give a valid argument then, either; at least, not for the claim that the block universe is the *only* possible interpretation of the relativity of simultaneity.

Macro world of trains getting shorter is SR, not QM. I know that your 'the event doesn't exists as long as it is not observed' comes from your QM course. Well, keep it there. Don't infect the SR forum with it.

First of all, I have never claimed that "the event doesn't exist as long as it is not observed". If you want to say, for example, that there is some real event happening on Alpha Centauri *right now*, go ahead; I've never objected to that. What you say is perfectly consistent with any possible observation that either of us can make, so I have no problem with it. But you are trying to say *more* than that; you are trying to say that SR *forces* everyone to use your interpretation only.

Second, your claim about the block universe, as I understand it, is a claim about "reality". "Reality" includes QM as well as SR. If they say different, incompatible things, at least one of them must be wrong. "Reality" doesn't separate itself into neat little categories to fit our theories.

I'm not interested in GR and QM in SR discussions.

Then stop making claims about "reality" in SR discussions, and then objecting when other people bring in knowledge that's relevant, even if it's from outside SR. If you want to talk about "reality", you have to be willing to talk about *everything* we know about it, since it's all interconnected. There is only one "reality"; there is not an "SR reality" separate from a "GR reality" or a "QM reality".

If you want to talk about SR as a scientific theory, which is very well confirmed within its domain of validity, that's fine. As far as I can see, you understand SR, as a theory, very well. But the theory is one thing, and interpretations of what it says about "reality" are something else. It's only the latter that is causing problems, not the former.

I consider this discussion closed. I'm tired of this. And you are probably fed up with me as well. So that's it. We better avoid each other on this forum.

That will be fine if you are willing to do as I suggest above. But it's not the first time someone has made that kind of suggestion to you, and so far you haven't done so.

[Edit: I suppose I should add that if you think avoiding me on this forum will be sufficient by itself for you to avoid problems, you are most likely mistaken. I am not the only one who has objected to the position you are taking. It's your insistence that the block universe is the *only* possible interpretation of SR that is causing problems. I have probably spent more time than others raising particular objections to that position, but that doesn't mean I'm the only one who disagrees with it, or who will object to it if you raise it again.

Also, as I said above, I think you understand SR, as a theory, very well, and I have seen you use spacetime diagrams, in particular, to clarify points in a number of other threads. So it's not your posts in general, but only the particular ones where you have taken the position I object to, that have caused problems.]

 

[ghwellsjr]

Vandam, I have had a hard time trying to figure out how your sketches lead to your conclusion regarding a block universe but your repeated statement in your last post that "relativity of simultaneity leads to the block universe" got me to thinking about maybe what you are saying. Tell me if this is right:

Pick any two simultaneous events in any inertial frame. For simplicity, let's put one of them at the origin and the other one somewhere else along the positive x-axis. That makes both of their time components zero and one of the x-components zero with the other one a positive number. Now we can pick any other inertial frame moving along the x-axis with respect to the first one and we can get any time component we want for the second event. In fact, as we repeatedly select a speed for the second frame from just under -c to just under +c, we will sweep through every time from almost +∞ to almost -∞. Since Special Relativity says that no frame is preferred, we really have to accept all of them as valid, which means that any two simultaneous events proves that all other times also exist--which is what the block universe is.

 

[harrylin]

I would be thrilled reading your points of view on following:

Special Relativity. (With that I mean: SR, not kind of an ether or LET interpretaion) [...]

The whole point of Einstein's first paper was that the Lorentz transformations could be deduced from observations without a (metaphysical) model. SR as defined by Einstein restricts itself to observations ("physical phenomena"), which makes it different from interpretations of SR - be it "LET", "block universe", or whatever.

 

[Dale]

I did. What other interpretation would you give? Abstract mathematical coordinate illusions like Lorentz did?

You may not like LET, for a variety of good reasons, but it is a valid interpretation of SR that matches all experimental predictions and does not require the block universe. LET is sufficient to show that the math of SR does not imply a block universe.

 

[harrylin]

A little critical side note to an otherwise excellent commentary:

To say that SR is consistent with the block universe interpretation just means that the block universe is one possible interpretation of SR, but not necessarily the only one.[..] GR provides a much stronger foundation for that kind of claim than SR does, because GR includes dynamics as well as kinematics, and GR is a fully deterministic theory. [..]

SR also includes dynamics (just consider "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" and the prediction there about accelerating electrons); and do you suggest that SR is less deterministic?

 

[PeterDonis]

SR also includes dynamics (just consider "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" and the prediction there about accelerating electrons)

The predictions about accelerating electrons require some dynamical equation, in that particular case the Lorentz force equation IIRC, to be *added* to the kinematic structure that SR provides. SR itself does not tell you *which* dynamical equation to use; it only sets some constraints on what form the dynamical equation must take. The Lorentz force equation is certainly not the only dynamical equation that is consistent with the SR constraints.

GR, by contrast, includes a dynamical equation--the EFE--as an integral part of the theory. If you are not using the EFE, you are not using GR. You can add additional dynamics on top of it--such as Maxwell's Equations, for example in deriving the Reissner-Nordstrom solution to the EFE--but those are always in addition to the EFE, not in place of it. Also, in such cases, the dynamics of spacetime and whatever else is present interact; that doesn't happen in SR.

(I suppose one could view SR as implicitly including some "dynamics" in itself, by viewing it as a specialization of GR for working with one particular solution to the EFE, flat Minkowski spacetime. On that view, the difference between SR and GR would be that GR does not restrict you to one particular "dynamics". To me that amounts to the same thing, since the "dynamics" of Minkowski spacetime is basically that "there is no dynamics" as far as spacetime is concerned; it's a fixed thing that doesn't interact with anything else.)

do you suggest that SR is less deterministic?

No, of course not. But showing that SR is deterministic is not the same as showing that "reality" is deterministic.

 

[bobc2]

I would be thrilled reading your points of view on following:

Special Relativity. (With that I mean: SR, not kind of an ether or LET interpretaion):
In a frame two events are observed simultaneous because they are simultaneous in that frame, even if not observed. And those two events are non-simultaneous in another frame because they are non-simultaneous in that frame, even not observed.
To make sure you understand what I mean please have a look at the sketch:

154690[/ATTACH]"]

What a nice clear way to explain the block universe concept. Good job. Thanks. I know that most of the response to your presentation focused on the inability to establish this as the final word on accounting for SR itself. As long as LET is seen as a logically alternate explanation for those same SR effects accounted for by the block universe, the question cannot be settled. I'll dig into the LET stuff, but at this point DaleSpam and others are making a valid point. Of course they have not (and haven't claimed to) established that the block universe is not the correct description for reality.

I appreciate your fervor in pursuit of reality and I share your conviction that pursuit of foundational physics includes researching the block universe concept--I certainly would not entrust such an edeavor to the philosophers. Stick to your guns.

 

[bobc2]

The philosopher Petkov does a reasonable job of presenting the case for the block universe:

http://www.spacetimesociety.org/VPetkov.html

He makes effective use of the twin paradox in dealing with attempts at a general relativising of 3-D objects. His problem is the same one that I had in my post which presented a case for the block universe. He makes no mention of the Lorentz Ether Theory. And it was clear to me that LET could not be included among the 3-D presentism concepts he was refuting. It's not clear whether he has just never encountered LET. In any case it has been made clear on this forum that LET must be dealt with if a case for block universe as the description for physical reality is to be made.

I'm on your side in these post exchanges, Vandam, and I admire your sticking to your guns. But, I'll have to find a cool person in the LET armor before I can be useful as a block universe team member.

I would admonish some of the PF folks to use more restraint while taking the advisarial approach in these debates. Vandam is fairly new to the forum and has not always received the kind of polite response that should be characteristic of even handed dialog. I would hate to lose a voice like his. I've been very impressed by his posts.

 

[PeterDonis]

I'll have to find a cool person in the LET armor

LET and block universe are not the only possible interpretations. You didn't respond to my post #31 in the other thread; I restated some of what I said in that post in post #7 of this thread. Do you have any comment on what I said there?

 

[Austin0]

Vandam, I have had a hard time trying to figure out how your sketches lead to your conclusion regarding a block universe but your repeated statement in your last post that "relativity of simultaneity leads to the block universe" got me to thinking about maybe what you are saying. Tell me if this is right:

Pick any two simultaneous events in any inertial frame. For simplicity, let's put one of them at the origin and the other one somewhere else along the positive x-axis. That makes both of their time components zero and one of the x-components zero with the other one a positive number. Now we can pick any other inertial frame moving along the x-axis with respect to the first one and we can get any time component we want for the second event. In fact, as we repeatedly select a speed for the second frame from just under -c to just under +c, we will sweep through every time from almost +∞ to almost -∞. Since Special Relativity says that no frame is preferred, we really have to accept all of them as valid, which means that any two simultaneous events proves that all other times also exist--which is what the block universe is.

I think that you have here clearly and succinctly illustrated the rationale for the block universe in it's simplest form.
But I am surprised at your conclusion, as you have previously, unequivocally expressed the thought that spatially separate events cannot have any definite determination regarding simultaneity. Unless I misunderstood you.
Here you seem to be applying an interpretation of actual simultaneity to the clocks in the initial frame. That is of course the crux of the question and making that assumption is equivalent to assuming block time itself.
Be that as it may. If we assume a negative proper time on a particular frames clock of almost -∞ and assign any actual temporal significance to this reading it would imply that this clock was contemporaneous with the big bang and before. While the clock in that frame at x=0 was contemporaneous with the initial frame. Since it is nonsense to assume that the observer at -∞ is seeing the universe as it was then, it makes it clear that any such interpretation of actual temporality attached to the time reading is without meaning or validity.
It just occurred to me that you may have intended this whole post as a reductio ad absurdem argument in which case I think it is brilliant.

 

[harrylin]

[..]
Red observer sees a Tom with clock indication on 8. Green observer sees Tom when the clock indication is at 2 (iow. 'Tom is not yet 8 seconds old'...). These are real observations. No illusions.[..]
-we HAVE to say, based on both travelers' observations- that Tom with clock indication 2 and Tom with clock indication 8 coexist as an observer INdependent construction, part of 4D Spacetime Block Universe in which 'past, present and future' of Tom exist permanently, observer INdependent. [..]
There is no other scenario unless it all gets philosophical or mathematical abstraction/illusion.
[..]
Text is OK

The text is also wrong. The real observations that they make are the receptions of independent signals with the information "Tom is 2 seconds old" and "Tom is 8 seconds old" - thus they must conclude that at the respective times of light emission these facts indeed occurred - no illusion there.

However, it is not at all a "real observation" that "Green observer sees Tom when the clock indication is at 2".
In fact, Green observer sees Tom after the clock indication is at 2 (or, with different meaning, he sees Tom when the clock indication was at 2). He can then choose whatever inertial reference system he likes, and as function of this free choice he calculates a certain time of signal transfer (assumptions about light speed and angle). Based on that he then assigns a certain local time to distant Tom when he sees the clock indication at 2.

In other words, Tom only "appears" to coexist with different clock indications (there you have it again! ) as a result of such different choices - it's an extremely observer dependent construction.

The words "observer" and "observation" as often used in SR are a bit misleading. Usually such "observations" are hypothetical readings (that could be made real in principle though) of instruments that have been set according to the free choice of the observer.

 

[harrylin]

I'm interested to learn how the following can be countered. I assume that the following claim is correct: The "block universe" interpretation implies that past, present and future' of Tom co-exist permanently.

This conclusion was drawn from the interpretation that "Tom with clock indication [t1] and Tom with [different] clock indication [t2] coexist".

As I mentioned in my last post, these different distant times t1 and t2 relate to disagreeing assumptions about the speeds of individual light rays relative to the observers (I'm talking about "closing speeds"). And while Vandam's example doesn't show it, these assumptions even imply disagreement about the speed of the light ray relative to Mr Red. And if according to the interpretation these contradictory "observations" are physical reality, then the same light ray really has different speeds relative to Mr Red.

So, here's my question: how can the block universe interpretation not result in thinking that "it's all a mathematical abstraction/illusion?"

 

[ghwellsjr]

Vandam, I have had a hard time trying to figure out how your sketches lead to your conclusion regarding a block universe but your repeated statement in your last post that "relativity of simultaneity leads to the block universe" got me to thinking about maybe what you are saying. Tell me if this is right:

Pick any two simultaneous events in any inertial frame. For simplicity, let's put one of them at the origin and the other one somewhere else along the positive x-axis. That makes both of their time components zero and one of the x-components zero with the other one a positive number. Now we can pick any other inertial frame moving along the x-axis with respect to the first one and we can get any time component we want for the second event. In fact, as we repeatedly select a speed for the second frame from just under -c to just under +c, we will sweep through every time from almost +∞ to almost -∞. Since Special Relativity says that no frame is preferred, we really have to accept all of them as valid, which means that any two simultaneous events proves that all other times also exist--which is what the block universe is.

I think that you have here clearly and succinctly illustrated the rationale for the block universe in it's simplest form.
But I am surprised at your conclusion, as you have previously, unequivocally expressed the thought that spatially separate events cannot have any definite determination regarding simultaneity. Unless I misunderstood you.
Here you seem to be applying an interpretation of actual simultaneity to the clocks in the initial frame. That is of course the crux of the question and making that assumption is equivalent to assuming block time itself.
Be that as it may. If we assume a negative proper time on a particular frames clock of almost -∞ and assign any actual temporal significance to this reading it would imply that this clock was contemporaneous with the big bang and before. While the clock in that frame at x=0 was contemporaneous with the initial frame. Since it is nonsense to assume that the observer at -∞ is seeing the universe as it was then, it makes it clear that any such interpretation of actual temporality attached to the time reading is without meaning or validity.
It just occurred to me that you may have intended this whole post as a reductio ad absurdem argument in which case I think it is brilliant.

No, I intended my post as a legitimate question to Vandam. I'm still hoping he will answer.

I also don't understand your confusion about what I have been saying with regard to the assignment of time to remote events. I've said that nature doesn't supply the answer. We do when we apply Einstein's definition of a Frame of Reference.

 

[Vandam]

Vandam, I have had a hard time trying to figure out how your sketches lead to your conclusion regarding a block universe but your repeated statement in your last post that "relativity of simultaneity leads to the block universe" got me to thinking about maybe what you are saying. Tell me if this is right:

Pick any two simultaneous events in any inertial frame. For simplicity, let's put one of them at the origin and the other one somewhere else along the positive x-axis. That makes both of their time components zero and one of the x-components zero with the other one a positive number. Now we can pick any other inertial frame moving along the x-axis with respect to the first one and we can get any time component we want for the second event. In fact, as we repeatedly select a speed for the second frame from just under -c to just under +c, we will sweep through every time from almost +∞ to almost -∞. Since Special Relativity says that no frame is preferred, we really have to accept all of them as valid, which means that any two simultaneous events proves that all other times also exist--which is what the block universe is.

Only because I started this thread:
Ghwellsjr, I'm worried about your "and we can get any time component we want for the second event".
My OP -intentionally- does not give any time coordinates. The 2 and 8 are physical clock indications. I have to elaborate on this.

Before I get back to the clock indications, let me change the sketch a bit. Instead of physical clock indications Tom shows successively A4 sheets of paper with a letter written on it. First he shows a sheet with an 'A', then a sheet with a 'B', etc.

For green observer the event 'Tom with paper B' is simultaneous with event E.
For red observer the event 'Tom with paper H' is simultaneous with event E.

You wrote:

Now we can pick any other inertial frame moving along the x-axis with respect to the first one and any time component we want for the second event

That's true. The time components will differ according to the chosen frames. But what does it mean, and does not mean? The time coordinates do not change anything to the content of the events. Even with the different time components we still keep 'Tom with paper B', and 'Tom with paper H'. Still two different events, the one in the past/future of the other.
Now comes in the 'time coordinates'.
Green and red observer have time coordinate '0' at event E.
Both observers -after lightspeed signals etc- have to agree that at event E Green observer gives another time coordinate to 'Tom with paper B' as the red observer does.
They will also give different time coordinates to 'Tom with paper H'.
Let's add a few time coordinates to make that crystal clear.
Green gives the event 'Tom with paper B' time coordinate '0' (zero)
Red gives time coordinate '0' to 'Tom with paper H'.
That's because they move relative to one another.
This means -as my sketch illustrates- that event E and 'Tom with paper B' are simultaneous for green onbserver, but not for red observer. For green observer event E and 'Tom with paper H' are not simultaneous, but for red observer they are.

You can add as many observers as you like. The two events will not change. The content of the two events will not change. Only the time (and space) between the events will change. But whatever coordinates you give them; the two observers will each give a zero-time coordinate to a different event in Tom's life showing papers. That's relativity of simultaneity.

Now comes the interesting part where I think you guys get stuck.
Let me get back to the 'clock indications'. Bobc2 (I think somewhere in one of his block universe threads) is dead right that the 'time' of a clock is nothing else than physical hardware of the clock: the hands point toward a number. But let's be careful how to interpret this before you prepare me a missile attack.

The physical clock indications are nothing else than what Tom's papers do.
'Tom with clock showing 2' gets a '0' time coordinate from the green observer.
'Tom with clock showing 8' gets a '0' time coordinate from the red observer.
Period. But it is necessary I explain what I mean by this.
Does red observer has to change the numb er 8 in event 'Tom with clock showing 8' into a '0' ? No way! You don't change content of events.
Does red observer has to consider event 'Tom with clock showing 0' (not shown in the sketch, it is below event 'Tom with clock showing '1') simultaneous with event E ? No way!

Does green observer has to change the number '2' of event 'Tom with clock showing 2' into a '0' ? No. You don't change content of events.
Does green observer has to consider 'Tom with clock showing 0' (not shown in sketch, it is below event 'Tom with clock showing '1') simultaneous with event E ? No way!

At event E both red and green frames of simultaneous events have another Tom event in their frame of simultaneous events ('now'-world). There is no other way than to accept the 4D Tom's worldline as a whole. Block universe. What other interpretation would you give to relativity of simultaneity?
What's a time coordinate?
If green observer attributes a timecoordinat '0' to the blue Tom event, it means that that for green observer the blue tom event (showing letter B) and event E happen at the same time. What does that mean physically? It means that the blue Tom event is part of green's 3D space at event E. If you do not accept that, then which Tom event is part of green traveler's 3D space at event E?
Same for red traveler.
If red observer attributes a timecoordinat '0' to the yellow Tom event, it means that that for red observer the blue tom event (showing letter H) and event E happen at the same time. What does that mean physically? It means that the blue Tom event is part of red's 3D space at event E. If you do not accept that, then which Tom event is part of red traveler's 3D space at event E?

Are both green and red frames of simultaneous events physically real. Are the 3D spaces I'm talking about physically real? Well, call them all real if you believe in an observer independent world (I do like Einstein did). Call them all not real if you are a solipsist. But don't tell me one frame is real and the other not. (That's what LET does: when the time coordinates fall outside of the ether frame Lorentz considered them as only abstract mathematical illusions.. See new thread what I think about this: LET and Lorentz transformations are incompatible:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4056225#post4056225

 

[ghwellsjr]

Vandam, in my proposal to understand what you are saying, I discussed the simultaneity of events without mentioning any objects or observers but you seemed to take offense at that and appear to want to link it only to "physical clock indications" and it is in this regard that you think I and others "get stuck". Is my assessment of your position accurate? Do you require that there be multiple objects or observers at different events in order to evaluate their simultaneity and build your argument for the block universe?

 

[harrylin]

[..] If green observer attributes a timecoordinat '0' to the blue Tom event, it means that that for green observer the blue tom event (showing letter B) and event E happen at the same time. What does that mean physically? It means that the blue Tom event is part of green's 3D space at event E. [..]

As you indicate yourself, what you call "green's 3D space" depends on green's attribution of distant time. That attribution is green's free choice; green's 3D space description depends on that free choice of perspective. I suspect that you hold green's perception of something, to be that something (we're stuck at "erscheint" instead of "ist"!). The "3D space" as described by green depends on greens' free choice of reference frame. It's similar to green's attribution of Tom's velocity: green cannot claim that Tom's velocity as attributed by him is "real", since he can attribute any velocity between 0 and c to Tom.

 

[Vandam]

Vandam, in my proposal to understand what you are saying, I discussed the simultaneity of events without mentioning any objects or observers but you seemed to take offense at that

Seemed? Well it's not true;) I understood your proposal, but I added my post only to make clear that we are talking about the same. In my opinion I'm still not sure.

and appear to want to link it only to "physical clock indications" and it is in this regard that you think I and others "get stuck". Is my assessment of your position accurate? Do you require that there be multiple objects

what do you mean with 'multiple objects'? Do you consider all the consecutive events on Tom's worldline as different 'objects'. Hmmm, yes I can live with that. Why not.

or observers at different events

No. not at different events. Where are the observers at different events? I don't see where.
Green and red are both part of event E.

in order to evaluate their simultaneity and build your argument for the block universe?

At event E in red's world there is a different Tom 'object' (I like that!) than in green's world.
Red and green evaluate the lightsignals they receive coming from 'Tom at he moment he is showing paper B' and 'Tom at he moment he is showing paper H'.
(I have corrected my sketch to incorporate those events (black dots))

They conclude that 'Tom at he moment he is showing paper B' was not part of 3D red world at event E, but part of 3D green world at event E.
'Tom at he moment he is showing paper H' was not part of 3D green world at event E, but part of red 3D world at event E.

Note1
In Einstein's train thought experiment the light beams reach the train traveler not simultaneously because the flashes did not happen simultaneaously. What does mean 'not happening simultaneously? The flash events are in two different (consecutive in time) 3D worlds of the train traveler. But are part of one 3D world only of the platform observer.
Or are you thinking that for the train traveler both flashes still happen in only one 3D world moment -the same 3D world as for the platform observer-, but only 'appear' as if they left simultaneously (or worse, only have different 'time coordinates' without being not-simultaneous, like a mathematical gimmic)?
That's why in my post above I wanted to make clear what time coordinates mean. And what they do not mean. There is more to physics than mathematics.

Note2
I know that some PF members might argue: "Wait a minute... at event E you can not know what happens with Tom." Correct. But based on the light singnals they will receive they know what happened with Tom in their worlds. If you do not follow that scenario then you do not believe in an observer independent world that exists before it is observed. Tell me if you share this vision, then I know I can close this discussion right here.

 

[Vandam]

As you indicate yourself, what you call "green's 3D space" depends on green's attribution of distant time. That attribution is green's free choice

Nothing free choice.

; green's 3D space description depends on that free choice of perspective.

No free choice of perspective.
The perspective he makes is the only one he can make. Or he has to change relative speed.

I suspect that you hold green's perception of something, to be that something (we're stuck at "erscheint" instead of "ist"!). The "3D space" as described by green depends on greens' free choice of reference frame.

No free choice. An observer has only one frame of reference: his own.

It's similar to green's attribution of Tom's velocity: green cannot claim that Tom's velocity as attributed by him is "real", since he can attribute any velocity between 0 and c to Tom.

Well, if speed changes then there will be other frames of reference. Yes. So what? You only confirm that the frames are all different than the other observers: other 3D cuts through one and the same 4D.
I think you have problems thinking 4D...

 

[harrylin]

[..] An observer has only one frame of reference: his own.
[..] Well, if speed changes then there will be other frames of reference. [..]

I think that I localized the bug!
What you call "his only frame of reference" is commonly called his "rest frame". There was no physical change in speed in my example (in no inertial frame did Tom's speed change).

As I mentioned before, there may be confusion due to the word" observer", which is commonly used to indicate not an observer but the origin of a coordinate system in which an observer is centered and in rest. However, an observer on Earth is free to use the ECI frame or even the solar frame. Because of such confusions I often avoid the word "observer" in explanations.

 

[Dale]

As I mentioned before, there may be confusion due to the word" observer", which is commonly used to indicate not an observer but the origin of a coordinate system in which an observer is centered and in rest. However, an observer on Earth is free to use the ECI frame or even the solar frame. Because of such confusions I often avoid the word "observer" in explanations.

I agree with this. I typically prefer to say "frame" rather than "observer" since it usually is closer to what I intend.

 

[Dale]

No free choice of perspective.
The perspective he makes is the only one he can make. Or he has to change relative speed.

This is not correct. You are always free to use any reference frame you choose, including ones in which you are moving. In fact, I daresay that most people playing sports, or running, or driving probably are mentally using a reference frame where the Earth is at rest and they are not.

When we speak of "his perspective" and "his frame" we are, by convention, referring to the inertial frame where he is at rest. But there is nothing special about that convention, even for him, so he is always free to choose a different one. Furthermore, there is no reason that he couldn't choose a different simultaneity convention than Einstein's, even if he decides to use a frame where he is at rest.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Seemed? Well it's not true;) I understood your proposal, but I added my post only to make clear that we are talking about the same. In my opinion I'm still not sure.

what do you mean with 'multiple objects'?

I said multiple objects or observers to cover the details of your scenario. Red and green were two observers but Tom apparently was an object with a clock and then later pieces of paper.

Do you consider all the consecutive events on Tom's worldline as different 'objects'. Hmmm, yes I can live with that. Why not.

No, Tom and his clock or pieces of paper are a single object. Red is an observer. Green is an observer. These are your definitions, not mine.

No. not at different events. Where are the observers at different events? I don't see where.
Green and red are both part of event E.

There is one event E with two observers, red and green. You have depicted multiple events for the non-observer Tom but you have only applied significance to two of those events, B and H.

At event E in red's world there is a different Tom 'object' (I like that!) than in green's world.

Not a different Tom 'object' but a different event for Tom that is simultaneous with event E in red's rest frame and in green's rest frame.

Red and green evaluate the lightsignals they receive coming from 'Tom at he moment he is showing paper B' and 'Tom at he moment he is showing paper H'.

At event E, red and green receive the exact same lightsignals from Tom. Received lightsignals from remote events has nothing to do with simultaneity of events.

(I have corrected my sketch to incorporate those events (black dots))

Those events? I thought there was just one event E for red and green under consideration. Why are there four dots?

They conclude that 'Tom at he moment he is showing paper B' was not part of 3D red world at event E, but part of 3D green world at event E.
'Tom at he moment he is showing paper H' was not part of 3D green world at event E, but part of red 3D world at event E.

I don't see how the four dots make those conclusions. But it doesn't matter. I don't need spacetime diagrams to understand simultaneity. But I still don't understand how or why you conclude that Relativity of Simultaneity leads to the Block Universe.

Note1
In Einstein's train thought experiment the light beams reach the train traveler not simultaneously because the flashes did not happen simultaneaously. What does mean 'not happening simultaneously? The flash events are in two different (consecutive in time) 3D worlds of the train traveler. But are part of one 3D world only of the platform observer.
Or are you thinking that for the train traveler both flashes still happen in only one 3D world moment -the same 3D world as for the platform observer-, but only 'appear' as if they left simultaneously (or worse, only have different 'time coordinates' without being not-simultaneous, like a mathematical gimmic)?
That's why in my post above I wanted to make clear what time coordinates mean. And what they do not mean. There is more to physics than mathematics.

I'm sorry, there are so many typos, bad grammar and ill-formed sentences that I cannot make sense out of your note. If you want me to respond to it, please clean it up.

Note2
I know that some PF members might argue: "Wait a minute... at event E you can not know what happens with Tom." Correct. But based on the light singnals they will receive they know what happened with Tom in their worlds. If you do not follow that scenario then you do not believe in an observer independent world that exists before it is observed. Tell me if you share this vision, then I know I can close this discussion right here.

Let me remind you that it was I that tried to explain your argument with no observers and no objects, just two simultaneous events in one frame and how they were viewed in other frames. But you apparently rejected my explanation and insisted on there being observers in some way that I still do not understand.

Of course I believe in an observer independent world.

But I get the impression that you believe that the received light signals are all that is necessary for observers to establish the simultaneity of remote events, without having previously established by arbitrary convention (or definition) what that simultaneity is. Or to put it another way, you believe that the world will tell us without any help on our part (as long as we're smart enough), the simultaneity of remote events and it can only be one way. This, I do not agree with, and neither does Einstein or anyone else that understands Special Relativity.

 

[Vandam]

From the start something is terribly going wrong in this thread and I can still not find out what or where.
I thought my last diagram sketch would make more sense to you all, but apparently I made it worse!
I think I better drop this thread until I've sorted out how to read not only your words, but your minds.